invite responseComments 1 - 13 of 13 Search these comments
Done!
2011 Jun 1, 6:07am
Yeah but then you'd create a bigger problem as the run off ever time it rained would flood the Mississippi even quicker. NOLA dykes couldn't handle that load.
Done!
2011 Jun 2, 12:20am
how would this solution create more runoff?
It's called a "Flood plane" for a reason. You could pile dirt on the top of it, but the water will still need to go somewhere. Water flows down hill, run off is quicker than absorption.
Requiring every property to have a massive sump pond or pool is more doable, but then would create all kinds of other problems. Accidental drownings, misquotes, leaks undermining foundations ect...
Hydro dynamics is the most powerful force on Earth, it's really hard to get it to do what you want. Even when you are successful, water will only humor you, until it can erode your defenses.
leo707
2011 Jun 2, 3:20am
You could pile dirt on the top of it, but the water will still need to go somewhere. Water flows down hill, run off is quicker than absorption.
Yep, this is totally correct. Also, coupled with everyone living on a little "hill" they would probably coat the hill in a non-permeable surface to reduce erosion; this accelerates water speed into the drainage system... aaaand... into the Mississippi. Also, accelerated water has the effect of increasing erosion on any surface.
Requiring every property to have a massive sump pond or pool is more doable, but then would create all kinds of other problems. Accidental drownings, misquotes, leaks undermining foundations ect…
There are actually underground systems to mitigate many of those problems, but as you can imagine they are not cheap solutions.
leo707
2011 Jun 2, 3:25am
FYI, here is a drawing on the city of Chicago's plans for dealing with runoff:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/23/us/23adaptation-graphic.html?ref=earth
leo707
2011 Jun 2, 3:27am
I’m guessing the real problem is cost, I really doubt it would only cost 60k to do a quality job.
Yeah, that is what I suspect as well. Also, when all your neighbors start putting demand on the materials and labor required then the costs probably go up dramatically.
leo707
2011 Jun 2, 3:34am
I find it very strange that people how live in flood plains to not take proper precautions to solve there problems permanently.
Yeah, I find this strange as well, but people simply do not think a flood is going to affect them, or that if it does it will not be that bad.
This is caused by the "Optimism Bias":
http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=238
TechGromit
2011 Jun 2, 6:29am
Yeah but then you’d create a bigger problem as the run off ever time it rained would flood the Mississippi even quicker. NOLA dykes couldn’t handle that load.
I don't see how. The goal isn't to raise all of the land, that would be impossibly expansive, just the property for your house and 10 or 20 feet surrounding it. Think rural towns, not high density subdivisions. When the next flood struck, you house would be an island with the flood waters going around it. Even if entire communities raised there properties, there would still be miles between communities the flood waters could flow across. I was also thinking of the low lying areas the flood waters are now affecting, not houses right up against the Mississippi river. While levees do a fairly good job in holding back flood water, a failure anywhere along the wall will expand into a beach several hundred feet across in no time.
As for the cost estimates, I used a program to estimate the how much dirt is required to raise a 80x80 plot of land ten feet high, then figured out the cost per load of dirt. I believe the cost estimate is fairly accurate. The more expansive part of the equation is building retaining walls to keep your dirt in place. I envision 5 x 5 foot square rocks to form a wall on all sides of the enclosure and a driveway leading up to your garage. Naturally if the flood waters are 15 feet high when it floods, it would require a higher wall or a lower wall if it floods less. I don't remember the exact estimate of how high the water was expected to get, but I'm be very surprised if it was more than 10 feet. you have to remember they were flooding an area hundred of miles across, not some some restricted waterway.
The amount of area you are trying to raise could also be smaller, a 40x40 area is 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost. the goal here isn't to raise your entire property, but just in important features, the house, garage, perhaps a shed and even a swimming pool. You can still utilize the remainder of your property, you would just have someplace to move your belonging to if a flood is predicted. Instead of dragging your furniture up to the second floor of the house (assuming you have one) and writing off the whole downstairs.
MAGA
2011 Jun 2, 6:39am
http://www.bradfieldproperties.com/property/property.asp?PRM_MLSNumber=629396&PRM_MlsName=SanAntonio
I had a Realtor try and sell me this lot. Per the Realtard, only 75% of it is in a flood zone and it only floods now and then. It's been on the market for years.
Done!
2011 Jun 2, 7:34am
Hills n Dales?
Who comes up with these names? That sounds like some mock suburb in a bad Ren and Stimpy episode.
MAGA
2011 Jun 2, 1:24pm
Hills n Dales?
Who comes up with these names? That sounds like some mock suburb in a bad Ren and Stimpy episode.
It's a very hilly area. So goes the name.
BTW, this is a very popular ice house in the area:
http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/Zt_uKwAjo9owNgCrorioFg?select=qp3f3PDPRWdx6powv-858Q
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2011 Jun 2, 2:20pm
Hills n Dales is awesome! One of the widest selections of beer I've seen. I actually shopped there my first year of college to get materials for a 'student designed experiment' in microbiology. I decided to test the 'killing coefficient' of 4 drinking ethanols vs. 2 commonly opportunistic skin pathogens, a spore former and uh, ya, I forgot.
I bought Bud Light, Samichlaus (38% alcohol content bear - strongest in the world at the time), Quervo and Everclear 190. To my surprise Bud Light killed by far the most bacteria. No contest so I surmised there was something else in the bud light. 70% Etoh has the highest killing coefficient - well known.
Nice area, I used to Mountain Bike there. The floods are generally in well defined and obvious areas. Plenty of nice limestone solid elevated areas to build on. I knew of spots out there were natural springs came up and dove back down into the ground clean enough to drink in the 80s. Crystal clear pools you could dive into 30ft deep. Water falls all over. Also other areas with swiss-cheese like caves you can explore for miles. We used to be way outside of city limits living out there but not anymore.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2011 Jun 2, 2:25pm
Left out the best part - UT paid for the beverages and so I had a little party with my friends using the 'left-overs'.
zzyzzx
2011 Jun 3, 12:44am
I agree with [b]TechGromit[/b] in that I do not understand why more people don't use infill and retaining walls to keep their house and cars off of the flood plain. I'd also add a hefty diesel generator and diesel supply (or something similiar) so that you would have electricity, enough to run the A/C to adequately dehumidify, and some sort of small boat.
I find it very strange that people how live in flood plains to not take proper precautions to solve there problems permanently. If you were to have 2,300 cubic yards of fill dumped on your property, you can build a 80 x 80 feet hill 10 feet high. At $20 a cubic yard delivered, that's about $45,000 or about 1,500 truck loads of fill. Figure on additional cost of building some kind of retaining wall made of wood like a dock bulkhead or stone to minimize any washing away of your fill, and an bull dozer to move the fill around. Total costs would be around $60,000 to create a property that is high enough to not flood ever again which you can then build your house on, including parking for cars, shed, etc. Sounds pricey, but when you consider the loss of two vehicles and the cost of rebuilding a house every time it floods it would be far cheaper in the long run. While it wouldn't make sense in every case, moving probably would be cheaper. When you consider they recently flooded an area hundreds of miles across to relive the pressure on the New Orleans dikes, it's not like you could just move across town to avoid the flood. It's also cheaper to raise you house and put it on stilts, but this offers you no protection for your vehicles and other property. What usually happens in the house raising situation, the bottom get enclosed and becomes storage and a garage. Just imagine how much stuff you have in your garage and assume it gets flooded by an unexpected flood, gone are cars, air compressor, power tools, motor cycle, lawn mower, etc.
In my opinion raising the grade of your property is the only permanent solution. And it would be a great investment too, people would pay a premium for a flood proof house. You could even have a full finished basement if it was properly sealed for water intrusion. A 30 x 40 basement 6 feet deep (most houses are built on basement walls that are 2 or 3 feet higher then the ground level) would also eliminate the need to 250 cubic yards of fill, (about $5000).